Supreme Court Opinions

Format: 10/24/2014
Format: 10/24/2014
Carter vs. State
03S01-9612-CR-00119
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Greene County Supreme Court 10/20/97
State vs. Sheline
03S01-9701-CR-00002
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 10/20/97
Stanbury vs. Bacardi
01S01-9609-CV-00178
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Davidson County Supreme Court 10/20/97
State vs. Murphy
01S01-9602-CC-00035
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 10/13/97
State of Tennessee v. Merlin Eugene Shuck
03S01-9607-CC-00071
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper

The defendant, Merlin Eugene Shuck, was convicted of one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit especially aggravated kidnaping. The defense theory at trial was entrapment, and in support of that defense, Shuck sought to introduce expert testimony from a neuropsychologist that he had suffered a cognitive decline and significant
deterioration of his cognitive abilities which rendered him more susceptible to inducement than the average person. The trial judge refused to admit the testimony finding that it would invade the province of the jury. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial. Thereafter, we granted the State permission to appeal to consider whether expert psychological testimony about a defendant’s susceptibility to inducment is admissible under Tennessee law to establish entrapment.

Cocke County Supreme Court 10/06/97
State of Tennessee v. Betty D. Levandowski
03S01-9611-CR-000116
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

In this appeal,1 we must determine whether a false response from an individual to an inquiry made by a law enforcement officer constitutes a false report within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-502(a)(1) (1991). After careful review, we hold that § 39-16-502(a)(1) applies to statements volunteered or initiated by an individual but does not apply to statements made in response to inquiries by law enforcement officers. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

Supreme Court 10/06/97
William D. Carroll vs. Fred Raney, Warden
02S01-9610-CC-00086
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/29/97
State vs. Dubose
01S01-9602-CC-00029
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/29/97
McDaniel vs. CSX Transportation, Inc.
01S01-9605-CV-00095
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/29/97
State vs. Gordon
01S01-9605-CC-00084
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/29/97
State vs. Dubose
01S01-9602-CC-00029
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell
Williamson County Supreme Court 09/29/97
Robinson vs. Omer, Sr.
01S01-9611-CV-00228
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/15/97
Vernon Ray Davis v. Jim Reagan and Howard Sexton, D/B/A Precision Construction Traveler's Insurance Co.
03S01-9603-CV-00034
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Holt, Jr.

We granted this consolidated appeal to determine whether permanent total disability can be awarded when an anatomical disability rating is less than 16.7 percent. In Seiber v. Greenbrier Industries, Inc., 906 S.W.2d 444 (Tenn. 1995), this Court adopted a panel decision holding that the limits in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (1996 Supp.) precluded an award of total disability when the anatomical impairment was less than 16.7 percent. A later, but unpublished, workers' compensation panel decision held that the limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) are not applicable to permanent total disability claims. Warren v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 03S01-9506-CV-00061 (Nov. 29, 1995, at Knoxville). We granted review to reconcile these two cases and decide this issue. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the panel's findings in Warren and hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241's limitations on permanent partial disability do not apply to awards of permanent total disability.

Sevier County Supreme Court 09/08/97